5 ms·
Agriculture took roughly 5000 years to be adopted. I don’t think it can be qualified of fast. Their was back and forth and things did not change rapidly for t
by dopidopHN 4y ago
Agriculture took roughly 5000 years to be adopted.
I don’t think it can be qualified of fast.
Their was back and forth and things did not change rapidly for the better automagically.
For milenaries, hunter gathered were better fed than village dweller ( from bones structures and trash analysis)
Source : Grabber & scott. Mostly “against the grain” and “debt, a history”
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago> Agriculture took roughly 5000 years to be adopted. When the question is why human society changed so little in 300,000 years, 5000 years is fast.
- jaggederest 4y agoIf human society was a day, agriculture has been around for 24 minutes.
- monero-xmr 4y agoIt always seems that we discover artifacts that push history farther back. Göbekli Tepe is 12,000 years old and I doubt hunter gatherers made this. I think sophisticated societies existed well past what we have discovered, but time has made it exponentially difficult to get historical proof except in bits and pieces.
- api 4y agoI think of it this way: time is like space. Things far back in time are like things orbiting distant stars. Go too far and telescopes can no longer see. This is made more real by the fact that the Earth is a boiling cauldron of plate tectonics, weather, and biological processes. It doesn’t take long for all traces of something to be obliterated. Maybe we think the first great civilizations were in the desert just because things decay slower in the desert.
- astrange 4y agoHunter-gatherers can make permanent sites for "ritual use" where they occasionally all meet up and then go back to being nomadic afterward.
- nradov 4y agoSure, but the notion that hunter-gatherers built something as large and complex as Göbekli Tepe seems unlikely. Construction required a sustained effort by expert craftspeople over many years. They would have needed a higher level of organization and more surplus resources than primitive hunter-gatherers could sustain.
- astrange 4y agoI mean, I think this is part tautological because you've defined them as primitive and not craftspeople. Couldn't they be non-primitive but largely nomadic craftspeople? (Gokebli Tepe in particular has evidence of processing of grains, but not large scale farming of them, and they might have only settled there for part of the year.)
- nradov 4y agoHow exactly could nomadic people develop advanced masonry skills? Are there any proven examples of nomadic people building large, complex permanent structures? What were all the architects and construction workers eating at the job site?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago> Agriculture took roughly 5000 years to be adopted. Not really, agriculture took thousands of years to breed productive crops, that were worth cultivating. Wild ancestors of modern crops where hardly worth growing, if at all. Like there were many parts of the world where they literally weren't. Once the crops became more productive, transitioning to to agriculture made a lot more sence.
- jvb1000 4y agoSee Graeber for a more nuanced understanding of how and why agriculture was (and often was not) integrated into prehistoric societies.
- dopidopHN 4y agoI’m sorry but this tread is full of old preconceived idea about early human history. Can you source your claims? That’s as polite as I can be at this point :)